TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

C-dub wrote:The concept of rank in a civilian company, to me, is mostly irrelevant. I've been in a large company with all those different levels and stuff and a director in another department had no real authority over me.

As Beiruty mentioned, HR managers or directors are very powerful folks. The line from them to folks much higher up is considerably shorter even though they may not have a title higher than mine. IMHO, the OP has been given oral notice. It may not be correct, but I wouldn't be willing to take that chance. I would be willing to get it clarified by someone higher up that seems to be open to the idea.

If the HR manager states a policy that is not a policy and that typically is set in the company by higher level, then I don't see how they have apparent authority to tell you. Hypothetical - I am a Director. I have the explicit permission to be on the property of my company. There is no written policy against carrying. The HR manager, or receptionist for that matter, comes to me and states that it is company policy that I can't carry. It's not, and he has no authority to make it so. Why does this constitute notice that I no longer have permission to remain on the property armed?

Exactly!

You have to separate 30.06 issues with company prohibition policies.

Two things here. One...the hr person either does or does not act with the authority of the owner to give 30.06 notice and only if the owner wishes to avail himself of the 30.06 prohibition. This is a matter of fact, not speculation. HR either does or does not WITH REGARD TO 30.06! There is either a 30.06 prohibition or there is not.

Second, 30.06 does not have importance in this discussion if we are talking about a company employee policy prohibiting employees with guns. In that case the janitor has the ability to let you know what the policy is, if there indeed is a policy. If the HR person is making up policies you had better make sure she hasn't been given that authority before you risk getting fired for not following it. If there is a company policy and if they will fire you for not following it it behoves you to follow it no matter how you get the info, janitor, mailboy, or secretary. If you want to challenge an employee's claim that there is a policy you need to be sure your career can stand it.

If you know there is no policy and if HR says there is then there is a problem. Act with political wisdom and get the issue resolved.

Tex

ScottDLS wrote:

C-dub wrote:The concept of rank in a civilian company, to me, is mostly irrelevant. I've been in a large company with all those different levels and stuff and a director in another department had no real authority over me.

As Beiruty mentioned, HR managers or directors are very powerful folks. The line from them to folks much higher up is considerably shorter even though they may not have a title higher than mine. IMHO, the OP has been given oral notice. It may not be correct, but I wouldn't be willing to take that chance. I would be willing to get it clarified by someone higher up that seems to be open to the idea.

If the HR manager states a policy that is not a policy and that typically is set in the company by higher level, then I don't see how they have apparent authority to tell you. Hypothetical - I am a Director. I have the explicit permission to be on the property of my company. There is no written policy against carrying. The HR manager, or receptionist for that matter, comes to me and states that it is company policy that I can't carry. It's not, and he has no authority to make it so. Why does this constitute notice that I no longer have permission to remain on the property armed?

cyphertext wrote:

thetexan wrote:I don't think so either...not 30.06 notification.

30.06 has to be either oral (which can be any verbage which gets the point across that you can't have that gun in here)

Considering the HR manager told him "the building actually prohibits CHL carry as well as the company does not allow it", I think he has been notified.

If it is true that the HR manager is just making statements of what she wishes was policy, then the C level folks need to correct her.